Author
Topic: Church Fathers against the Papacy (Read 27522 times)

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.

I don't have time right now, but look up Pope Victor and Polycrates. I've posted the story from Eusebius about that: Pope Victor was "rebuked" by councils held throughout the Church when he tried to bully the Asian Church.

Also posted is Pope St. Gregory's letters against the idea of a universal bishop.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.

I don't have time right now, but look up Pope Victor and Polycrates. I've posted the story from Eusebius about that: Pope Victor was "rebuked" by councils held throughout the Church when he tried to bully the Asian Church.

Also posted is Pope St. Gregory's letters against the idea of a universal bishop.

Two quotes from Pope St. Gregory:

"As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city." (Lib. IX, Ep. 12)

"If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it [the Apostolic See]; but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility." (Lib. IX, Ep. 59)

+++++++++++++++++++++

Again I think you lack the proper took kit or vision with which to assess Catholic documents in context.

The quotes above make a case against your assertions quite clearly, so something is wrong in your "reading" of these other letters of which you speak.

What you are presenting here is a myth that has gained a great deal of credibility in modern Orthodoxy but I have only ever heard this assertion made by those who have a great resistance to any kind of pre-schismatic claims to any kind of papal primacy at all. But you do not find disinterested classicists who take this reading of the ancient documents.

More than anything these bi-lateral discussions that we are having are in great need of historians who are capable of reading in the moment as well as the languages involved. But I do think we are coming closer to all of that and some of these mythologies will finally be put to their due rest.

What happened was the claim for new rights and duties from the then primate Roman bishops.

What happened was a "prime-minister" claiming absolute power and resistance to it coming from the "congress". Eventually, the "congress" considered the "prime-minister" and his new "laws"(theology) to not be in accordance to the "nation's" traditional law/ thus, the now ex-prime-minister had formed an entirely new "country". The traditional "congress" then passed the office of prime-minister to the next in the succession line (Constantinople). The ex-prime-minister got sort of angry with that, and leaving aside that one can be a prime-minister only within a congress, started claiming that whoever lived in his city (which had been the capital of the country many centuries before, in fact more centuries than those between us and the Great Discoveries) was the prime-minister and it was his office that defined who was in "congress" or not.

The role of the primate, as St. Gregory quoted by Mary, was that of head of bishops, which imperial laws by Justinian and Phocas confirm. The "head of the bishops" is the "president" of the "congress" not the "president of the country". He is a congressman among congressmen, just with a special role. The supreme role of "Mr. President" belongs to Christ only if, in this analogy, the "country" is the Church.

The same St. Gregory also said the he who took the title of Universal Bishop would be the precursor of the AntiChrist, that such a lofty title necessarily takes from the honour and authority from every other bishop. I, particularly, think this was an ex cathedra statement.

----------

The Papacy is far more than just having a primate. It implies a series of novel and heretical teachings:

onthological and inheritable character of the primacy, that is, primacy belongs to Rome as an irremovable trait. The charisma of Peter's leadership was given to the city bishop, whoever he is.the primacy is the source of orthodoxy. You are orthodox because you are under the Pope as long as you don't contradict him;

------

Traditional primacy, on the other hand worked in a different way:

The primate has jurisdiction only over his own archdiocese; His "universal role" so to speak, is as mediator and "president" of the universal synod of bishops; We do not have, at this moment in history, any secular institution that resembles that exactly. The closest is the Swiss Federal Council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Council.

Infallibility belongs to the Holy Spirit only and may manifest itself through the primate or through a poor monk, or even through miracles. Nobody and nothing holds it in an exclusive irremovable way;

Primacy is an office of the Church, like all activities of priesthood. It does not belong to one bishop or see, but to the Holy Spirit. If an entire see falls from Orthodoxy, it doesn't retain the primacy.

The Orthodox faith is the source of primacy. Having this inegotiable fundament, other factors that are relevant are ecclesiastical tradition and secular centrality.

------

Archbishop Kenrick, one of the many RCs who opposed the heresy of infallibility during Vatican I (although due to respect he later silenced about it), wrote a book making a denunciation of how this heresy was forced upon the council of RC bishops.

In this book, talking about St. Matthews 16:18, he actually counted how many fathers interpreted it according to the disputed readings of the passage.

Archbishop Kenrick wrote:

Quote

"In a remarkable pamphlete printed in fac-simile of manuscript and presented to the fathers almost two months ago, we find five different interpretations of the word "rock", in the place cited; "the first of which declares (I transcribe the words) "that the church was built on Peter; and this interpretation is followed by seventeen fathers, among them, by Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Augustine."The second interpretation understands from these words 'on this rock will I build my church', that the church was built on all the apostles, whom Peter represented by virtue of the primacy. And this opinion is followed by eight fathers - among them, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret."The third interpretation asserts that the words, 'on this rock', etc, are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed - that this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ to be the Son of the Living God, is the everlasting and immovable foundation of the church. This interpretation is the weightiest of all, since it is followed by forty-four fathers and doctors; among them, from the East, are Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact; from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from Africa, Augustine.The fourth interpretation declare that the words 'on this rock', etc, are to be understood of the rock which Peter had confessed, that is, Christ - that the church was built upon Christ. This interpretation is followed by sixteen fathers and doctors.The fifth interpretation of the fathers understands by the name of 'the rock', the faithful themselves, who, believing Christ to be the Son of God, are constituted living stones out of which the church is built. Thus far the author of the pamphlet aforesaid, in which may be read the words of the fathers and doctors whom he cites.From this it follows, either that no argument at all, or one of the slenderest probability, is to be derived from the words, 'on this rock will I build my church', in support of the primacy. Unless it is certain that by 'the rock' is to be understood the apostle Peter in his own person, and not in his capacity as the chief apostle speaking for them all, the word supplies no argument whatever, I do not say in proof of papal infalibility, but even in support of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by 'the rock' should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith."Archbishop Kenrick in "An Inside View of the Vatican Council"

I disagree with some of the consequences the good Archbishop took from the assessment of the information brough by the pamphlet he read. Lacking the proper Orthodox theology, he seems to think that the Fathers have different opinions on the interpretation of the polemyc passage, but they do not. In fact, they are pointing different applications of the same principle. Nevertheles, it is as the archbishop said: whatever right the primate has, he has in the capacity of his office as head of the bishops and depending on the orthodoxy of his faith, and not in him himself as source of Orthodoxy.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 03:08:19 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.

I don't have time right now, but look up Pope Victor and Polycrates. I've posted the story from Eusebius about that: Pope Victor was "rebuked" by councils held throughout the Church when he tried to bully the Asian Church.

Also posted is Pope St. Gregory's letters against the idea of a universal bishop.

Two quotes from Pope St. Gregory:

"As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city." (Lib. IX, Ep. 12)

"If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it [the Apostolic See]; but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility." (Lib. IX, Ep. 59)

John Paul II was of course a VERY charismatic public person, who "gave" an image of sanctity to the world. I'm not so sure of his sanctity, though. He embraced many Protestant ideas, supported abhorrent liturgical innovations, invoked a false ecumenism which smells of relativism... He just had a stronger attractive power towards the youth, which is of course the only reason why I prefer him to Benedict XVI. But still my favourite is John XXIII: I think they stopped him while he was trying to do something TRULY ecumenical and at the same time not so relativistic. Unfortunately, he didn't manage to do that :-(

I was rather fond of JP II, and am of Benedict XVI. That doesn't mean I could agree to put the one on the iconostasis, nor commune the other.

Quote

A suggestion to you, dear Dan-Romania: read the epistular exchanges between Pope Gregory and the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, so that you can grasp the true meaning of the Papacy in the original Orthodox church!

Quote

"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."

Yet, the popes claim for superjurisdiction over all bishops... so they clearly are in heresy and precursors of Antichrist!

In the same correspodence Pope St. Gregory tells the Pope of Alexandria (the title originated there, centuries before Rome took it) and Antioch that they are all bishops of the one Petrine See.

Usually I find articles from Bonocore here. AAARg. I once saw a "timeline" he had a hand in which claimed that Theodosius gave the title EP as a counter to Gratian giving the title pontif to the Pope of Rome. A glaring anachronism for starters.

This is article isn't too bad. Of course, it has its inadequacies.

He mentions that St. Gregory talks of Constantinople having heresiarchs. This of course was before Pope Honorius (who of course isnt' mentioned).

Of course it is interesting so much emphasis on the title, whereas in substance, the Vatican indeed only has one bishop.

Another thing sidestepped and not mentioned in the article is that St. Gregory during this cotroversy wrote that the patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria (through St. Mark) and Antioch are all one Petrine See. I've yet to see an explanation, then why Antioch shouldn't be ahead of Alexandria, since Antioch is Petrine directly, Alexandria second hand. Could it be because that was the secular order within the empire, like the Fathers alluded to in Constantinople c. 3 and Chalcedon c. 28 (btw, St. Gregory is quite wrong on the Pope's veto power: even Pope St. Leo recognized that his own bishops were not following his veto of canon 28)?

I always love this quote:

"As regards the Church of Constantinople,WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it."

So the brother bishop of Constantinople, a/k/a the percursor of antichrist, continually acknowleges Rome. I've never seen the antichrist cited as a Church Father for papal supremacy outside of a Chick tract.

"As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city."

So St. Gregory's brother and bishop of the Church of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch a/k/a "the precursor of antichrist," constanty owns that he is subject to "the Apostolic See" as the Vatican fancies itself. I'll repeat, never seen the precursor of the antichrist cited as a Church Father in favor of Ultramontanism, outside of this and Chick Publications.

Again I think you lack the proper took kit or vision with which to assess Catholic documents in context.

I have the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. I need nothing else.

In the case you bring to the bar, if you are going to press your quote, then one only need to know how to see hypocrisy when he sees it, as an Ultramontanist read of St. Gregory has to also summarize his argument as "do as I say, not as I do."

More than anything these bi-lateral discussions that we are having are in great need of historians who are capable of reading in the moment as well as the languages involved. But I do think we are coming closer to all of that and some of these mythologies will finally be put to their due rest.

It often doesn't take much: I've often seen acts, epistles, etc. "translated" where the "pope" of Rome is speaking amongst bishops. When one looks at the original, anyone with even a few lessons of Latin or Greek can see that "bishop" is the same word used for the bishop of Rome and his brother hiearchs.

As for "reading in the moment"

Quote

Mention should be made of the curious fact that, although Gregory's sojourn at Constantinople lasted for six years, he seems never to have mastered even the rudiments of Greek. Possibly he found that the use of an interpreter had its advantages, but he often complains of the incapacity of those employed for this purpose. It must be owned that, so far as obtaining help for Rome was concerned, Gregory's stay at Constantinople was a failure. However, his period as ambassador taught him very plainly a lesson which was to bear great fruit later on when he ruled in Rome as pope. This was the important fact that no help was any longer to be looked for from Byzantium, with the corollary that, if Rome and Italy were to be saved at all, it could only be by vigorous independent action of the powers on the spot. Humanly speaking, it is to the fact that Gregory had acquired this conviction that his later line of action with all its momentous consequences is due.

In 579, Pelagius II chose Gregory as his apocrisiarius (ambassador to the imperial court in Constantinople).[p. 8] Gregory was part of the Roman delegation (both lay and clerical) that arrived in Constantinople in 578 to ask the emperor for military aid against the Lombards.[p. 9] With the Byzantine military focused on the East, these entreaties proved unsuccessful; in 584, Pelagius II wrote to Gregory as apocrisiarius, detailing the hardships that Rome was experiencing under the Lombards and asking him to ask Emperor Maurice to send a relief force.[p. 9] Maurice, however, had long ago determined to limit his efforts against the Lombards to intrigue and diplomacy, pitting the Franks against them.[p. 9] It soon became obvious to Gregory that the Byzantine emperors were unlikely to send such a force, given their more immediate difficulties with the Persians in the East and the Avars and Slavs to the North.[p. 10]

According to Ekonomou, "if Gregory's principle task was to plead Rome's cause before the emperor, there seems to have been little left for him to do once imperial policy toward Italy became evident. Papal representatives who pressed their claims with excessive vigor could quickly become a nuisance and find themselves excluded from the imperial presence altogether".[p. 10] Gregory had already drawn an imperial rebuke for his lengthy canonical writings on the subject of the legitimacy of John III Scholasticus, who had occupied the Patriarchate of Constantinople for twelve years prior to the return of Eutychius (who had been driven out by Justinian).[p. 10] Gregory turned himself to cultivating connections with the Byzantine elite of the city, where he became extremely popular with the city's upper class, "especially aristocratic women".[p. 10] Ekonomou surmises that "while Gregory may have become spiritual father to a large and important segment of Constantinople's aristocracy, this relationship did not significantly advance the interests of Rome before the emperor".[p. 10] Although the writings of John the Deacon claim that Greogry "labored diligently for the relief of Italy", there is no evidence that his tenure accomplished much towards any of the objectives of Pelagius II.[pp. 10-11]

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

II wrote to Gregory as apocrisiarius, detailing the hardships that Rome was experiencing under the Lombards and asking him to ask Emperor Maurice to send a relief force.[p. 9] Maurice, however, had long ago determined to limit his efforts against the Lombards to intrigue and diplomacy, pitting the Franks against them.[p. 9] It soon became obvious to Gregory that the Byzantine emperors were unlikely to send such a force, given their more immediate difficulties with the Persians in the East and the Avars and Slavs to the North.[p. 10]

The great sin of Constantinople was its arrogance about the "barbarians" of the West. They were quickly becoming, not only more than barbarians, but an entirely new civilization. Constantinople failed to see that and treated them as the foederati barbarians of old until its very last breath. We can't blame them entirely since there were no records of that magnificent phenomena they were witnessing: the birth of a civilization. Only with hindsight it seems "easy" to notice that something momentous was happening in the West. Nevertheles, because of the same hindsight, it seems clear to me that Constantinople's fall abandoned by the allies that could have helped her, is but a historic irony for the period when the City itself had abandoned the West.

Had Constantinople cared as it should about the West, we probably would still have two civlizations, one more "hellenically eastern" and another more "latin-germanic". But both would be Orthodox, the Ottoman Empire would never have grown so much and I wouldn't be surprised that the City would have had collonies of its own in Asia, Africa or even in the Americas.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 06:37:47 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Impatient, aren't we? Even by internet standards, you're a bit quick on the trigger. Why should we bother re-hashing what likely amount to thousands of pages (8 1/2 x 11 type) of counter-Papal-Supremacy arguments here on this site, when you could literally do a 2-minute search and find dozens of threads with hundreds of quotes, arguments, and/or references. My goodness, we have a specific Orthodox-Catholic section with 24 pages of threads (at 45 threads/page, that's a lot of discussions) - most of which at least in one way or another address the issue of the Papacy. IMO, there is no single human figure who has been as divisive within Christianity as the Pope (and I have a feeling most, if not all, of my Orthodox brethren would agree), so there are certainly (at least from our POV) many, many citations on this site to our position viz-a-viz the Pontiff, Vatican, etc.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 07:43:53 PM by Fr. George »

Logged

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."" Isaac Asimov

Impatient, aren't we? Even by internet standards, you're a bit quick on the trigger. Why should we bother re-hashing what likely amount to thousands of pages (8 1/2 x 11 type) of counter-Papal-Supremacy arguments here on this site, when you could literally do a 2-minute search and find dozens of threads with hundreds of quotes, arguments, and/or references. My goodness, we have a specific Orthodox-Catholic section with 24 pages of threads (at 45 threads/page, that's a lot of discussions) - most of which at least in one way or another address the issue of the Papacy. IMO, there is no single human figure who has been as divisive within Christianity as the Pope (and I have a feeling most, if not all, of my Orthodox brethren would agree), so there are certainly (at least from our POV) many, many citations on this site to our position viz-a-viz the Pontiff, Vatican, etc.

lol. No. I'm very patient. I just get frustrated sometimes hearing the Sam people make the same arguments regardless of the OP. I am truly interested in the responses.

It might be helpful if you first click on the "Petrine Primacy" tag below and read the threads. I think you'll find some quotes there. If you still need more, you can come back to this thread and ask more specifically about what you want.

You do realize that asking for quotes like you do against Ultramontanis, you seem to be asking something akin to asking for quotes of the Fathers against Episcopalianism: it didn't exist in full bloom to be written against.

Mat. 13:24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, 'No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Until the weeds appear, the Fathers understanbly are silent.

Btw, on Polycrates:

Quote

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor...Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It might be helpful if you first click on the "Petrine Primacy" tag below and read the threads. I think you'll find some quotes there. If you still need more, you can come back to this thread and ask more specifically about what you want.

Just a suggestion.

I appreciate the advice, but I dont come to forums as reference. I like forums for the dialog.

When I think of this issue, I don't think of the florilegiums and proof texting, or even debates over the quotes (e.g. here), I think of historical realities. When I think of how Justinian treated the Pope, or how the Pope's desires were ignored when adopting canons at Councils, of how Eastern bishops (even stains) didn't think it any big deal to not be in communion with Rome, of how some Eastern bishops were outright rejected by Rome (e.g. Meletius of Antioch) and were nonetheless considered valid and even saintly, and so forth, I come to the conclusion that the early Christians just didn't attribute powers to the Pope that quotes hand-picked by Catholic apologists would seem to indicate.

When I think of this issue, I don't think of the florilegiums and proof texting, or even debates over the quotes (e.g. here), I think of historical realities. When I think of how Justinian treated the Pope, or how the Pope's desires were ignored when adopting canons at Councils, of how Eastern bishops (even stains) didn't think it any big deal to not be in communion with Rome, of how some Eastern bishops were outright rejected by Rome (e.g. Meletius of Antioch) and were nonetheless considered valid and even saintly, and so forth, I come to the conclusion that the early Christians just didn't attribute powers to the Pope that quotes hand-picked by Catholic apologists would seem to indicate.

Indeed. I recently noticed that with the Ecumenical Councils, the decrees are signed by a myriad of bishops. The councils that the Vatican has held since the schism for the most part only have the signature of the supreme pontiff. (Florence being an obvious exception: trying to get the Orthodox bishops to sign on was the purpose of dragging them to Florence).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The relevant portion being: "And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him."

I also find it interesting that while St Polycarp is shown to have received his tradition from St John and other Apostles, Pope Anicetus' tradition is from anonymous preceding presbyters.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

onthological and inheritable character of the primacy, that is, primacy belongs to Rome as an irremovable trait. The charisma of Peter's leadership was given to the city bishop, whoever he is.the primacy is the source of orthodoxy. You are orthodox because you are under the Pope as long as you don't contradict him;

------

Here is where you have to resort to false attribution and presumption, without which the rest of your argument falls apart. I hope Orthodox bishops are more subtle when we get to this point of the discussion.

The first assertion that you make above is an outright falsehood, because the Church teaches very clearly that the infallibility of the papal office is a function of the infallibility of the Church. Without the certitude of Church, you cannot have the certitude of the papal office. IF the bishops rise up against a teaching, then the pope, reaching into Tradition for the substantial truth of a teaching may exercise his apostolic authority singly and the faithful can have a high degree of certitude that his word is true while the bishops fail in their duty to protect the faith. If you assert other than this in the face of explicit Catholic teaching then you assert a falsehood.

The second is a perversion and a presumption. It, in no way, reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What you fail to do, and this is no small thing. You fail to concede that the excesses of papal authority over time are abuses. They are not ever intended to be to formal faithful teaching of the Church. Do Catholics realize that popes erred and erred badly sometimes? Absolutely. But to assert that these errors and excesses cause the Church to permanently veer away from the age old truth of the primacy is false, and purposefully so, done in an attempt to put the Catholic Church in a bad light. It never does hold up to scrutiny internally and surely will not externally.

But while you are busy pulling the mote out of the Catholic eye, you miss the plank in the primatial eye of Orthodoxy...

It is better if we allow one another to define who we are to each other rather than lobbing presumptions and false accusations.

But if that happens, when that happens, the fighting ceases...and we can't have that...can we?

I have the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. I need nothing else.

In the case you bring to the bar, if you are going to press your quote, then one only need to know how to see hypocrisy when he sees it, as an Ultramontanist read of St. Gregory has to also summarize his argument as "do as I say, not as I do."

I am a member in the Body of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So I do not speak out of my own understanding, but that is all you can do when you speak of the Catholic Church.

That is the problem here. You are not qualified to speak for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, though you insist that you do.

There is no hypocrisy in St. Gregory the Great. You have failed to read him in context and apprehend his meaning in the case that you press.

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.

The idea that is being put forward here, concerning Pope St. Gregory the Great, is being presented in a very misleading way. Here is a clip from an encyclopedia entry.

St. Gregory I (590-604), who succeeded Pelagius IT, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been legate (apocrigianus) there (578-584); and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp I, iv, Ib P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his " Regula pastoralis " is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, " Patrology ", tr. Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of (ecumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii in P. L., LXXVII, 738). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Cpnstantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V,xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon), to assume such a title as this. It further argues independence of any superior; whereas, says Gregory, "who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?" (Epp., IX, xii, ibid., 957); and again: "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See" (ibid.).

The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.). This idea rests on a misconception (HefeleLeclercq, " Histoire des Conciles ", II, Paris, 1908, pp. 834-5), but his reason for resenting the title in any bishop is obvious throughout his letters. "He understood it as an exclusion of all the others [privative quoad omnes alias] so that he who calls himself cacumenic, that is universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth " (so Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence; Hergenrother, "Photius", I, 184). For this reason Gregory does not spare his language in denouncing it. It is "diabolical arrogance " (Epp., V, xx, in_P. L., LXXVII, 746, xxi, 750. etc.); be who Bo calls himself is antichrist. Opposed to it Gregory assumed the title borne ever since by his successors. "He refuted the name 'universal' and first of all began to write himself ' servant of the servants of God' at the beginning of his letters, with sufficient humility, leaving to all his successors this hereditary evidence of his meekness " (Johannes Diaconus, "Vita S. Gregorii", II, i, in P. L., LXXV, 87). Nevertheless the patriarchs of Constantinople kept their "oecumenical" title till it became part of their official style. The Orthodox patriarch subscribes him

self still: "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and (Ecumenical Patriarch". But it is noticeable that even Photius (d. 891) never dared use the word when writjng to Rome. The Catholic Church has never admitted it. It became a symbol of Byzantine arrogance and Ihe Byzantine schism. In 1024 the Emperor Basil II (963-1025) tried to persuade Pope John XIX (1024-1033) to acknowledge it. The pope seems to have been ready to do so, but an outburst of indignation throughout the West and a stem letter from Abbot William of Dijon made him think better of it (Fortescue, " Orthodox Eastern Church ", p. 167) . Later again, at the time of the final schism, Pope Leo IX writes to Michael Cserularius of Constantinople (in 105.3): "How lamentable and detestable is the sacrilegious usurpation by which you everywhere boast yourself to be the Universal Patriarch" (op. cit., p. 182). No Catholic bishop since then has ever dared assume this title.

With regard to the issue, one should note first that Gregory knew no Greek. He saw the words only in a Latin version: Patriarcha universalTM, in which they certainly sound more scandalous than in Greek. How he understood them is plain from his letters. They seem to mean that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates. Catholic theology does not affirm this of the pope or anyone. Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See. It is the whole difference between diocesan ordinaries and vicars Apostolic. All bishops are not Apostolic vicars of the pope. Nor has any pope ever assumed the title "universal bishop", though occasionally they have been so called in complimentary addresses from other persons. The accusation, then, that Gregory's successors have usurped the title that he so resented is false.

onthological and inheritable character of the primacy, that is, primacy belongs to Rome as an irremovable trait. The charisma of Peter's leadership was given to the city bishop, whoever he is.the primacy is the source of orthodoxy. You are orthodox because you are under the Pope as long as you don't contradict him;

------

Here is where you have to resort to false attribution and presumption, without which the rest of your argument falls apart. I hope Orthodox bishops are more subtle when we get to this point of the discussion.

The first assertion that you make above is an outright falsehood, because the Church teaches very clearly that the infallibility of the papal office is a function of the infallibility of the Church. Without the certitude of Church, you cannot have the certitude of the papal office. IF the bishops rise up against a teaching, then the pope, reaching into Tradition for the substantial truth of a teaching may exercise his apostolic authority singly and the faithful can have a high degree of certitude that his word is true while the bishops fail in their duty to protect the faith. If you assert other than this in the face of explicit Catholic teaching then you assert a falsehood.

The second is a perversion and a presumption. It, in no way, reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What you fail to do, and this is no small thing. You fail to concede that the excesses of papal authority over time are abuses. They are not ever intended to be to formal faithful teaching of the Church. Do Catholics realize that popes erred and erred badly sometimes? Absolutely. But to assert that these errors and excesses cause the Church to permanently veer away from the age old truth of the primacy is false, and purposefully so, done in an attempt to put the Catholic Church in a bad light. It never does hold up to scrutiny internally and surely will not externally.

But while you are busy pulling the mote out of the Catholic eye, you miss the plank in the primatial eye of Orthodoxy...

It is better if we allow one another to define who we are to each other rather than lobbing presumptions and false accusations.

But if that happens, when that happens, the fighting ceases...and we can't have that...can we?

Mary

In what ways would you say that papal authority has been exaggerated or abused from a Catholic perspective?

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist. For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist. One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts. To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism. In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy. We need to be careful about proof texting, however. I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion.

I have the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. I need nothing else.

In the case you bring to the bar, if you are going to press your quote, then one only need to know how to see hypocrisy when he sees it, as an Ultramontanist read of St. Gregory has to also summarize his argument as "do as I say, not as I do."

I am a member in the Body of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I know that the Vatican tells you so, but it has been struck from the diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for nearly a millenium: the bishop of Rome commemorated there now is Bishop Siluan. If the hierarchs meet in 2012, as published, they will be able to make that official and clear for those for whom that is not already evident.

That is the problem here. You are not qualified to speak for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, though you insist that you do.

Your supreme pontiff is not qualified to speak for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, though he claims to, and you believe him. You are not in a position to give me a nihil obstat, imprimatur, nor letters apostolic. Your approbation would add nothing to that which I received from the One, Holy, Cathoic and Apostolic Church in her chrism.

You have failed to read him in context and apprehend his meaning in the case that you press.

No, I have not.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist. For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist. One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts. To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism. In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy. We need to be careful about proof texting, however. I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion.

Excellent analogy.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist. For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist. One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts. To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism. In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy. We need to be careful about proof texting, however. I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion.

Excellent analogy.

Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist. For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist. One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts. To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism. In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy. We need to be careful about proof texting, however. I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion.

Excellent analogy.

Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin.

onthological and inheritable character of the primacy, that is, primacy belongs to Rome as an irremovable trait. The charisma of Peter's leadership was given to the city bishop, whoever he is.the primacy is the source of orthodoxy. You are orthodox because you are under the Pope as long as you don't contradict him;

------

Here is where you have to resort to false attribution and presumption, without which the rest of your argument falls apart. I hope Orthodox bishops are more subtle when we get to this point of the discussion.

The first assertion that you make above is an outright falsehood, because the Church teaches very clearly that the infallibility of the papal office is a function of the infallibility of the Church. Without the certitude of Church, you cannot have the certitude of the papal office. IF the bishops rise up against a teaching, then the pope, reaching into Tradition for the substantial truth of a teaching may exercise his apostolic authority singly and the faithful can have a high degree of certitude that his word is true while the bishops fail in their duty to protect the faith. If you assert other than this in the face of explicit Catholic teaching then you assert a falsehood.

The second is a perversion and a presumption. It, in no way, reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What you fail to do, and this is no small thing. You fail to concede that the excesses of papal authority over time are abuses. They are not ever intended to be to formal faithful teaching of the Church. Do Catholics realize that popes erred and erred badly sometimes? Absolutely. But to assert that these errors and excesses cause the Church to permanently veer away from the age old truth of the primacy is false, and purposefully so, done in an attempt to put the Catholic Church in a bad light. It never does hold up to scrutiny internally and surely will not externally.

But while you are busy pulling the mote out of the Catholic eye, you miss the plank in the primatial eye of Orthodoxy...

It is better if we allow one another to define who we are to each other rather than lobbing presumptions and false accusations.

But if that happens, when that happens, the fighting ceases...and we can't have that...can we?

Mary

Mary,

you say that your church teaches that primal infallibility comes from the infallibility of the Roman institution itself. Yet, you say that even right before you affirm that if the collegiate of bishops unanimously say something different, it is the supreme bishop of the RCs that will be the ultimate factor of decision.

Obviously that is either a false argument or an outright malicious attempt to cause cognitive dissonance, since there is an obvious contradiction between the praxis and the theoria, something so self-evident that one can only advise to avoid this kind of rustic line of thought if we are to have any serious debate. Of course that at this point, everybody has already noticed your arrogant condescendence which just thinly hides your slanderous contempt for the Church. But it's ok since the Church has been the victim of these vile falsehoods from its very beginning. You're just the last in a very, very long line.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 02:31:26 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist. For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist. One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts. To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism. In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy. We need to be careful about proof texting, however. I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion.

Excellent analogy.

Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin.

Did the office of "Pope" exist in the time of the Fathers? Of course. Alexandria had (and has) one.

Did the first Nicene Council give to Rome a primacy of honour, due to it's status as capital of the Roman Empire? Yes.

Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone, exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century? It would not appear so.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone, exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century? It would not appear so.

False. Try again.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.

The idea that is being put forward here, concerning Pope St. Gregory the Great, is being presented in a very misleading way. Here is a clip from an encyclopedia entry.

You left out the book info:"The Catholic encyclopedia: an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline and history of the Catholic Church" Volume 8 By Knights of Columbus. Catholic Truth Committee." Hmmm. Is that like the Ministry of Truth? I wonder which side the Knights of Columbus (the Vatican's answer-and a good one-to the Masons) will come down on? Unlike the Crusaders, though, their swords are only ceremonial. But at least the CE is honest in its bias:

Quote

The Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917)The need of a Catholic Encyclopedia in English was manifest for many years before it was decided to publish one. Editors of various general Encyclopedias had attempted to make them satisfactory from a Catholic point of view, but without success, partly because they could not afford the space, but chiefly because in matters of dispute their contributors were too often permitted to be partial, if not erroneous, in their statements.

St. Gregory I (590-604), who succeeded Pelagius IT, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been legate (apocrigianus) there (578-584); and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp I, iv, Ib P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his " Regula pastoralis " is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, " Patrology ", tr. Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of (ecumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii in P. L., LXXVII, 738). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Cpnstantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V,xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon),

Odd that they would admit that Pope St. Gregory acknowledged the Pentarchy, and then here call it "uncertain.'

Quote

to assume such a title as this. It further argues independence of any superior; whereas, says Gregory, "who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?" (Epp., IX, xii, ibid., 957); and again: "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See" (ibid.).

It would seem that he hadn't heard of Patriarch St. Meletius. Nor the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.

Quote

The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.).

This idea rests on a misconception (HefeleLeclercq, " Histoire des Conciles ", II, Paris, 1908, pp. 834-5), but his reason for resenting the title in any bishop is obvious throughout his letters. "He understood it as an exclusion of all the others [privative quoad omnes alias] so that he who calls himself ecumenic, that is universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth " (so Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence; Hergenrother, "Photius", I, 184). For this reason Gregory does not spare his language in denouncing it. It is "diabolical arrogance " (Epp., V, xx, in_P. L., LXXVII, 746, xxi, 750. etc.); be who so calls himself is antichrist. Opposed to it Gregory assumed the title borne ever since by his successors. "He refuted the name 'universal' and first of all began to write himself ' servant of the servants of God' at the beginning of his letters, with sufficient humility, leaving to all his successors this hereditary evidence of his meekness " (Johannes Diaconus, "Vita S. Gregorii", II, i, in P. L., LXXV, 87). Nevertheless the patriarchs of Constantinople kept their "oecumenical" title till it became part of their official style. The Orthodox patriarch subscribes himself still: "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and (Ecumenical Patriarch". But it is noticeable that even Photius (d. 891) never dared use the word when writjng to Rome. The Catholic Church has never admitted it. It became a symbol of Byzantine arrogance and Ihe Byzantine schism. In 1024 the Emperor Basil II (963-1025) tried to persuade Pope John XIX (1024-1033) to acknowledge it. The pope seems to have been ready to do so, but an outburst of indignation throughout the West and a stem letter from Abbot William of Dijon made him think better of it (Fortescue, " Orthodox Eastern Church ", p. 167) . Later again, at the time of the final schism, Pope Leo IX writes to Michael Cserularius of Constantinople (in 105.3): "How lamentable and detestable is the sacrilegious usurpation by which you everywhere boast yourself to be the Universal Patriarch" (op. cit., p. 182). No Catholic bishop since then has ever dared assume this title.

No, but the Vatican did:read Pastor Aeternus. The EP is Catholic. As for the Vatican, "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" just reeks of humility.

Quote

With regard to the issue, one should note first that Gregory knew no Greek. He saw the words only in a Latin version: Patriarcha universala, in which they certainly sound more scandalous than in Greek. How he understood them is plain from his letters. They seem to mean that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates. Catholic theology does not affirm this of the pope or anyone.

Ah, the Ministry of Truth at work.

Quote

Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See.

So they receive it in name only. So a distinction without a difference:

Quote

It is the whole difference between diocesan ordinaries and vicars Apostolic. All bishops are not Apostolic vicars of the pope. Nor has any pope ever assumed the title "universal bishop", though occasionally they have been so called in complimentary addresses from other persons.

Quote

The accusation, then, that Gregory's successors have usurped the title that he so resented is false.

No it hits the nail on the head, and is thus too close for comfort. Neither EP St. John the Faster, nor his successors (or most of them: oddly enough today, those most insistent on seeing the Vatican as a sister church also insist on seeing the Phanar as the Orthodox Vatican) claimed to be a universal bishop, but successors of Pope St. Gregory most certainly have.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 02:54:05 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone, exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century? It would not appear so.

False. Try again.

False. Try again. Just this time with an argument.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist. For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist. One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts. To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism. In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy. We need to be careful about proof texting, however. I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion.

Excellent analogy.

Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin.

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.

Sic dicet Vaticana.

The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Church says with with Pat. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who said it in the first century of the Church: "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8

(btw, it was arguing over this quote that was the last straw for extending the term "Catholic" to the Vatican by me).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You have failed to read him in context and apprehend his meaning in the case that you press.

No, I have not.

You have clearly distorted his meaning by implying that the Catholic Church claims the title "universal bishop" for the men in the papal office. That is not a title used by the papal office. So his rejection of the title cannot mean that St. Gregory the Great is denying his own office.

You assert a general protestant argument in that instance and it has never been upheld, though many keep trying.

In some ways it not even meant to be a serious argument any longer in most eyes.

onthological and inheritable character of the primacy, that is, primacy belongs to Rome as an irremovable trait. The charisma of Peter's leadership was given to the city bishop, whoever he is.the primacy is the source of orthodoxy. You are orthodox because you are under the Pope as long as you don't contradict him;

------

Here is where you have to resort to false attribution and presumption, without which the rest of your argument falls apart. I hope Orthodox bishops are more subtle when we get to this point of the discussion.

The first assertion that you make above is an outright falsehood, because the Church teaches very clearly that the infallibility of the papal office is a function of the infallibility of the Church. Without the certitude of Church, you cannot have the certitude of the papal office. IF the bishops rise up against a teaching, then the pope, reaching into Tradition for the substantial truth of a teaching may exercise his apostolic authority singly and the faithful can have a high degree of certitude that his word is true while the bishops fail in their duty to protect the faith. If you assert other than this in the face of explicit Catholic teaching then you assert a falsehood.

The second is a perversion and a presumption. It, in no way, reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What you fail to do, and this is no small thing. You fail to concede that the excesses of papal authority over time are abuses. They are not ever intended to be to formal faithful teaching of the Church. Do Catholics realize that popes erred and erred badly sometimes? Absolutely. But to assert that these errors and excesses cause the Church to permanently veer away from the age old truth of the primacy is false, and purposefully so, done in an attempt to put the Catholic Church in a bad light. It never does hold up to scrutiny internally and surely will not externally.

But while you are busy pulling the mote out of the Catholic eye, you miss the plank in the primatial eye of Orthodoxy...

It is better if we allow one another to define who we are to each other rather than lobbing presumptions and false accusations.

But if that happens, when that happens, the fighting ceases...and we can't have that...can we?

Mary

Mary,

you say that your church teaches that primal infallibility comes from the infallibility of the Roman institution itself. Yet, you say that even right before you affirm that if the collegiate of bishops unanimously say something different, it is the supreme bishop of the RCs that will be the ultimate factor of decision.

Obviously that is either a false argument or an outright malicious attempt to cause cognitive dissonance, since there is an obvious contradiction between the praxis and the theoria, something so self-evident that one can only advise to avoid this kind of rustic line of thought if we are to have any serious debate. Of course that at this point, everybody has already noticed your arrogant condescendence which just thinly hides your slanderous contempt for the Church. But it's ok since the Church has been the victim of these vile falsehoods from its very beginning. You're just the last in a very, very long line.

Dramatic! You might want to be careful about what you say to and about me personally, not for any correction you might engender but for the damage that kind of bitter and unjust thinking does to the soul.

The easy example against your tirade here is the fact that there are many many bishops and priests and monks currently in the Catholic Church who are either supportive of the ordination of women into the ministerial priesthood, or are, as some say, "resigned" to the fact that it will soon be a reality in the Church. In the face of that fact, Pope John Paul II issued a statement declaring that women are not proper matter for the sacrament of holy orders...based upon the long TRADITION of the Church...rather than being based upon the immediate and weak positions taken by bishops and priests world-wide, Church-wide.

So the Pope cannot simply go against his bishops alone, but he can CALL UPON THE LONG TRADITION of the Church in refuting dissident bishops in the present moment.

So John Paul II set the precedent for the next pope, and the next, and the next for dealing with dissident bishops on the matter of women priests. Pope Benedict has also dealt strongly with the issue, again paving the way for other popes who might need to stand against dissident bishops.

So you can put your drama away, at least as far as it is to have any impact on me personally. I would hope others might see where the sense and sensibility lies in this matter in any event.

Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone, exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century? It would not appear so.

False. Try again.

False. Try again. Just this time with an argument.

I will respond with an argument when I see an argument to respond to. But all that is presented is an assertion, well how does one argue against that?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist. For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist. One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts. To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism. In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy. We need to be careful about proof texting, however. I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion.

Excellent analogy.

Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin.

Did the office of "Pope" exist in the time of the Fathers? Of course. Alexandria had (and has) one.

Pope constitutes a title, not an office. At least in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, where the episcopate is an ontological whole. The office of Archbishop of Rome, and Pontiff of Rome (it was a pagan office received by the archbishop of Rome) existed but it had not yet arrogated the title of "Pope" to itself. Pope Gregory, not the St. the Great I but the VII, did that in the 11th century (when it dug up and dusted off the void anti-Photios council of Constantinople (869)).

Did the first Nicene Council give to Rome a primacy of honour, due to it's status as capital of the Roman Empire? Yes.

Not exactly: Nicea I recognized what already was. And it was that way because of the secular order. Otherwise there is, on theological reasons of scripture and Tradition, no reason why Alexandria preceeds Antioch, both of which, btw, do not owe their position to Old Rome.

Alexandria has had it since Pope Dionysius (248-265) mentions it in reference to Pope Heraclas (232–248)

The rebuke of Pope Victor, the striking of Pope Vigilius from the diptychs and the Fifth Council being held over his objection, the refusal to recognize Pat. St. Meletius of Antioch deposal by Rome etc., says no, such a concept did not exist.

Quote

derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone,

The claim of a special "Petrine" authority (as opposed to the authority of SS Peter and Paul) does not seem to predate Pope St. Stephen of the 3rd century.

The claims based on Matthew 16 is even later, as even the CE admits:"It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

It is also odd that the proof text comes not from St. Mark, the Gospel associated with Rome, but St. Matthew, the Gospel associated with St. Peter's first see of Antioch.

Quote

exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century? It would not appear so.

Indeed not.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone, exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century? It would not appear so.

False. Try again.

False. Try again. Just this time with an argument.

I will respond with an argument when I see an argument to respond to. But all that is presented is an assertion, well how does one argue against that?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist. For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist. One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts. To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism. In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy. We need to be careful about proof texting, however. I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion.

Excellent analogy.

Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin.

As I said, I was referring to the “ultramontane” understanding of the Papacy, not the Papacy itself.

You have failed to read him in context and apprehend his meaning in the case that you press.

No, I have not.

You have clearly distorted his meaning by implying that the Catholic Church claims the title "universal bishop" for the men in the papal office. That is not a title used by the papal office.

The title "Dictator" is rarely used by dictators either. And most republics nowadays (e.g. Syria, Egypt, N. Korea, etc.) are monarchys in all but name only. The Emperoro Augustus himself, claimed only to be "First Citizen."

So his rejection of the title cannot mean that St. Gregory the Great is denying his own office.

Since the office of papacy as the Vatican in Pastor Aeternas propounds the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, which it miscontrues into the papacy upon which it predictates the strength and coherence of the whole Church, didn't exist, it didn't exist for Pope St. Gregory to renounce.

You assert a general protestant argument in that instance and it has never been upheld, though many keep trying.

The Pillars of Orthodoxy upheld it long before the Protestants came along, and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Orthodoxy will uphold it long after the Protestants and the Vatican are gone.Protestants? Hardly.

In some ways it not even meant to be a serious argument any longer in most eyes.

so your mouth speaks for most eyes now, huh? Was a vote taken, or did you receive letters apostolic.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

you say that your church teaches that primal infallibility comes from the infallibility of the Roman institution itself. Yet, you say that even right before you affirm that if the collegiate of bishops unanimously say something different, it is the supreme bishop of the RCs that will be the ultimate factor of decision.

Obviously that is either a false argument or an outright malicious attempt to cause cognitive dissonance, since there is an obvious contradiction between the praxis and the theoria, something so self-evident that one can only advise to avoid this kind of rustic line of thought if we are to have any serious debate. Of course that at this point, everybody has already noticed your arrogant condescendence which just thinly hides your slanderous contempt for the Church. But it's ok since the Church has been the victim of these vile falsehoods from its very beginning. You're just the last in a very, very long line.

Dramatic! You might want to be careful about what you say to and about me personally, not for any correction you might engender but for the damage that kind of bitter and unjust thinking does to the soul.

The easy example against your tirade here is the fact that there are many many bishops and priests and monks currently in the Catholic Church who are either supportive of the ordination of women into the ministerial priesthood, or are, as some say, "resigned" to the fact that it will soon be a reality in the Church. In the face of that fact, Pope John Paul II issued a statement declaring that women are not proper matter for the sacrament of holy orders...based upon the long TRADITION of the Church...rather than being based upon the immediate and weak positions taken by bishops and priests world-wide, Church-wide.

So the Pope cannot simply go against his bishops alone, but he can CALL UPON THE LONG TRADITION of the Church in refuting dissident bishops in the present moment.

So John Paul II set the precedent for the next pope, and the next, and the next for dealing with dissident bishops on the matter of women priests. Pope Benedict has also dealt strongly with the issue, again paving the way for other popes who might need to stand against dissident bishops.

So you can put your drama away, at least as far as it is to have any impact on me personally. I would hope others might see where the sense and sensibility lies in this matter in any event.

Mary

Tradition failed the Vatican, or rather the Vatican failed Tradition, in Vatican I and Vatican II. The "supreme pontiff" went and did what he wanted anyways.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 03:53:14 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

St. Gregory I (590-604), who succeeded Pelagius IT, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been legate (apocrigianus) there (578-584); and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp I, iv, Ib P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his " Regula pastoralis " is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, " Patrology ", tr. Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of (ecumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii in P. L., LXXVII, 738). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Cpnstantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V,xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon),

Odd that they would admit that Pope St. Gregory acknowledged the Pentarchy, and then here call it "uncertain.'

Oh my. I hope that you are not suggesting that consistency, lack of any qualifications concerning discernment and meaning, followed closely by literal black and white statements with only one possible meaning are a mark of the True Church?

It seems that much of what you say in these discussions tend to hold everyone else to a standard that you brush off when applied to what seems to be in your interest.

Not exactly. Our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always wanted to preserve and transmit the Orthodoxy it received from the Apostles, neither adding to nor subtracting from it. And so we have done.

So yes we also have done what we wanted, but what we wanted differed from the Vatican's wishes and desires.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Dramatic! You might want to be careful about what you say to and about me personally, not for any correction you might engender but for the damage that kind of bitter and unjust thinking does to the soul.

So you can put your drama away, at least as far as it is to have any impact on me personally. I would hope others might see where the sense and sensibility lies in this matter in any event.

Mary

Mary,

we couldn't agree more on the tone of the message I posted and you criticized. Dramatic indeed. And bitter and unjust and utterly senselles and without sensibility.

Only that, as anyone who cares may easily compare, I did not write in my usual style, but I used *your* recorrent style for replying messages: passive-agressive, condescendent, constantly whining about how everybody is so unjust with my church and using that as an excuse to indirectly say that people whom you disagree with are malicious or ignorant, using ad argumenton eristics (the technique of "calling names" to an argument to make the audience not accept it), in short, going way over the line of respect for someone who goes to another faith's forum to dialogue. If a protestant or orthodox goes to a RC forum, this person will have to read now and then that their faith is heretic. It's life. Get over it. There will not be en mass convertion, just a couple of people will move from one church to the other. These institutions will not go away, even if they are wrong (hindu religion and budhism have been around far longer than Christianity; endurance is no proof of truth).

You want dialogue? Show a bit more of respect. I may be the only one here speaking about this, but I bet a lot of people here are tired of your's (and Papist's) trolling around. I am a moderator of forums as well (not this one) and I have defended the RC from historical falsehoods not once or twice, but many times, even defending the Inquisition in its historical context which is far over the boundery even for some of the self-styled tolerants. Your constant accusations of ignorance and mallice against everybody who does not agree with RC interpretations of the first millenium speak more about the attitude that moves you than of any real fact. The world is not made of the people who agree with you or like your church on one side, and the stupid malignant ones on the other.

I have no moderating power here whatsoever, but as co-forumite, I'll repeat my request: you are not Orthodox, you are not in your house. Your presence here is a kindness of the creators of the forum for the sake of dialogue. If you can't make your point without passive-agressiveness, if you can't make it without pretending everybody who disagrees is ignorant or mallicious, you'd better restrain yourself.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 04:18:55 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Not exactly. Our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always wanted to preserve and transmit the Orthodoxy it received from the Apostles, neither adding to nor subtracting from it. And so we have done.

So yes we also have done what we wanted, but what we wanted differed from the Vatican's wishes and desires.

I agree. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has always preserved and transmited orthodoxy. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, has not.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

St. Gregory I (590-604), who succeeded Pelagius IT, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been legate (apocrigianus) there (578-584); and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp I, iv, Ib P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his " Regula pastoralis " is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, " Patrology ", tr. Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of (ecumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii in P. L., LXXVII, 738). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Cpnstantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V,xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon),

Odd that they would admit that Pope St. Gregory acknowledged the Pentarchy, and then here call it "uncertain.'

Oh my. I hope that you are not suggesting that consistency,

What consistency? If he had stuck to his "theory of three patriarchs," or gave it up and adopted the official Pentarchy of the Church, either would show consistency. Officially accepting the Pentarchy-he owed his stay in Constantinople to it-while hiding behind the legal fiction that Rome hadn't accepted the canons officially, and arguing against the established fact of the Pentarchy from a dicarded theory, just makes a muddled mess of his purported mandate.

It seems that much of what you say in these discussions tend to hold everyone else to a standard that you brush off when applied to what seems to be in your interest.

Not at all.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

So John Paul II set the precedent for the next pope, and the next, and the next for dealing with dissident bishops on the matter of women priests. Pope Benedict has also dealt strongly with the issue, again paving the way for other popes who might need to stand against dissident bishops.

What about precedents set during the pontificate of the venerable John Paul II on altar girls?